One possible way to end Affirmative Action?

[Genghis Pwn]

The black white difference on IQ tests is 15 points-- about 1 SD, which puts the effect size at 1.0.

As posted earlier, here are some guidelines from the well-respected statistician (who doesn't publish in this area, and gives these estimates as guidelines for science in general), Cohen:

Effect sizes of .2 are considered small, .4 medium and .6 large.

1.0-- the black white difference-- is so large, Cohen has no name for it.

IIRC, only 14% of blacks score average on an IQ test, with only 3% scoring one SD above.

The differences are not trivial, and to the extent that IQ correlates with important life outcomes (which it does-- see previous threads) the group difference here is a likely (but not sole) explanation for why blacks do so poorly when it comes to things like education, ses, etc.

The data are the data.
B

What part of this is not clear?

M&H thought that genetics accounted for about 60% of IQ outcome. That leaves plenty of room for environmental factors. Of course environment plays a role. But for your guys to sit here and spin so much and make up all these totally lame diversions and excuses reflects very poorly on your critical thinking ability. You seem dead-set against accepting the facts and data because you don't like -- or are uncomfortable with -- the conclusion that whites and asians have higher IQs than blacks. Why can't you admit it? It's really absurd. IQ scores are beyond disupte. 15 points is not a small number.

You can make excuses about the tests being "culturally biased" but asians from such diverse places as Vietnam, Korea, Japan and China seem to have absolutely no problem at all adjusting to the "culture" of IQ tests.

Isn't the more obvious answer that maybe white people and asians are a little bit smarter than blacks on average?

Hey jj, I think this would be a better avatar for you...

 

[c0rbin]

What part of this is not clear?

The part which is unclear is what it has to do with AA.

How is AA a disadvantage to white people?

 

[jj]

There is no god damn "junk science" required to add up IQ scores. All you need is a piece of paper and a calculator. Lol at this denial that you seem to be in.

And why does this sum you propose making have any meaning outside the existance of the numbers on the piece of paper.

Explain what experiments you have available that could falsify the implications from the sum, and what the outcome of those experiments are.

Be sure to mention not only experiments that support your hypothesis.

 

[Frank Newgent]

You're wrong when you say my view of Texans is influenced by personal bias, media bias, and cultural bias. By bias I believe you mean biased in a negative way. I was biased towards Texans in a positive way.

My parents used to be ESL teachers and they are left-wing people who have very high opinions of people who are Texans. My father will occasionally do that left-wing thing where he'll say something good about Texans and Wisconsinites with much enthusiasm or jump at a chance to say how stupid Hawaiians are.

So biased was my view of Texans that when I was in elementary school and my mother said there was a problem with gang violence among Texans, I thought she was lying, because the idea that there might be evil Texans seemed absurd to me. At the age, I even avoided at all costs using the word Texan in reference to a state.

Then I went to the Betty Ford Clinic and my view of Texans and Wisconsinites changed drastically.

edited for content.

 

[Tmy]

.

You can make excuses about the tests being "culturally biased" but asians from such diverse places as Vietnam, Korea, Japan and China seem to have absolutely no problem at all adjusting to the "culture" of IQ tests.

Isn't the more obvious answer that maybe white people and asians are a little bit smarter than blacks on average?

Just how do you define "culture"? Just coming from a different place???

How about this Asian countries have this culture where grades are schooling are very important. So important that kids kill themselves if they fail. Soooooooo maybe that gets trasfered here where Asian kids have that pressure to get good grades. That doesnt mean they are born smarter.

In Canada their is a big culture pressure to be good in hockey, so some of the best players in the world are Canadian. An extremely high % of the worlds top players.

Do mean to tell me that Canadians are genetically superior hockey players??? The data says so.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Just how do you define "culture"? Just coming from a different place???

How about this Asian countries have this culture where grades are schooling are very important. So important that kids kill themselves if they fail. Soooooooo maybe that gets trasfered here where Asian kids have that pressure to get good grades. That doesnt mean they are born smarter.

In Canada their is a big culture pressure to be good in hockey, so some of the best players in the world are Canadian. An extremely high % of the worlds top players.

Do mean to tell me that Canadians are genetically superior hockey players??? The data says so.

Hockey is more popular in Canada and Russia than in other places. Just like Bozkeshi (dragging a headless sheep around in a polo-style game) is poplular in Afghanistan. Thus, 99% of the world's best Bozkeshi players are Afghans. This is just common sense.

IQ is tested around the world. Why would IQ tests only be culturally biased against blacks? In America, blacks have been speaking English for hundreds of years and going to public schools for generations. Many of the Asians tested are from worse socioeconomic situations than American blacks. Yet blacks from around the world score low on IQ tests while asians from around the world score high. Why? Some grand conspiracy? Maybe it's because asians are a little smarter than blacks? Why do you refuse to accept this as a possibility? Just like blacks are a little faster in the 100-meter dash than asians. Do you deny that?

 

[Tmy]

Just like blacks are a little faster in the 100-meter dash than asians. Do you deny that?

Oh thats right. Thats the reason the sub saharan African countries clean up at the Summer Olympics medal count.........o wait they dont.

 

[Malachi151]

http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html

Sternberg: What I mean is that there is absolutely no relation between how heritable something is and the existence of a difference in group means. The most common example is height. Height has a heritability of greater than .9, but heights have increased quite dramatically in some countries like Japan and have also increased in our own country over the course of several generations. So despite the much higher heritability of height than anyone believes of intelligence, we see that height can increase. To take a more extreme example: there is a disease known as Phenylketonuria (PKU), which is 100% heritable and yet through an environmental intervention, namely withholding Phenylalanine from the diets of infants from birth, you can either reduce or eliminate the mental retardation that normally results. In other words, even when heritability is 1.00, environmental interventions still matter. There are different ways to look at intelligence. One is to do heritability statistics, which I've never found to be that helpful. Another way is to look at studies on intervention. For example, Dennis did a large study in Iran where he found that kids that were placed in Iranian orphanages, almost without exception, were mentally retarded, whereas the children who were quickly adopted before the age of two scored at normal levels on intelligence tests, roughly a 50-point difference in obtained IQ.

Skeptic: Are such results repeatable?

Sternberg: Yes. Obviously the environment of the Iranian orphanage was pretty bad and that's why you got that level of retardation. But if you look at the kinds of environments some of our least fortunate get, even in the United States, in the inner cities, they are not so hot either. Diamond performed studies on brain mass in rats and found that if you give them an enriched environment, it affects the brain, which becomes heavier and more convoluted.

Skeptic: How is your more elaborate view of heritability and its limitations different from what Herrnstein and Murray say in The Bell Curve? Sternberg: The way that book is written is to, I think, say X on page 605 in sentence 8, with an appropriate caution, and then invite the reader to a somewhat more extreme conclusion elsewhere. So if you were to ask, "Is there anywhere in The Bell Curve that explains what heritability truly is?" there probably is. If you were to ask, "What inference do Herrnstein and Murray invite their readers to draw?" they go beyond what they know. For example, with regard to race differences, Herrnstein and Murray invite the reader to conclude that race differences are due to genetics, even though they have no evidence of that, and they know it.

Sternberg: Yes, but there is evidence that they do not review at all. There is nothing in the book that suggests that race differences are genetic. They even say that. But what they do say is that is what we would infer given the data, even though probably somewhere else, they would have one sentence to the effect that there is one study. And they don't cite a number of studies that suggest that race differences are not genetic.

Skeptic: Which then is your position on the question of race differences in IQ? We all see the 1 standard deviation difference in mean IQ if we give the tests to groups of Blacks and Whites. Is that mean difference the result of genetics, environment, both, or should we say at this point that we just don't know?

Sternberg: What we know is that almost any difference is some interaction between heredity and environment. But in terms of apportioning the difference, we have no idea. And I think that Herrnstein and Murray know that as well as do other psychologists. Like everyone else we don't like ambiguous situations, so some jump to conclusions even though I think at this point we don't have a very good idea of why we get that difference. Although we recognize that it has generally been decreasing over time.

Sternberg: One example is taking studies that show that within group heritabilities have nothing to do with between group heritabilities and then insinuating that they do. Another example is the issue of causation and correlation. They know, and anyone who takes statistics knows, you can't draw any real causal conclusions from correlational data. Lots of things correlate with lots of things, IQ being one of them. To draw causal inferences from correlational data, which is what all their data are, is statistically incorrect. Another thing that many may not realize is that virtually all their data are based on one study, the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY), which was not a study that was particularly representative of the United States population.

Sternberg: Some years back in the early 1980s the government of Venezuela initiated a country-wide drive to improve the intellectual abilities of the children. They invited a number of researchers from Venezuela and abroad to come in. One program was initiated by Harvard, and Herrnstein was the head of that program. It was successful. They published the results in American Psychologist, which is a leading psychological journal, showing that there had been significant and impressive gains in IQ.

Sternberg: I am not disagreeing that IQ is predictive of a lot of things. I'm not one of the extreme left-wingers who say that IQ tells you absolutely nothing. I don't agree with that. So to the extent that it predicts some level of success in pilot training, I don't have any argument with that. But I do argue with the idea that IQ is the end of the line. We have been working for about 10 years in the field of practical intelligence, predicting, for example, the success of managers and sales people, which are pretty practical occupations. We actually did a study at Brooks AFB and found that our measures of practical intelligence-that is, measures of how well you can go into an environment and figure out what you need to succeed in that environment and then actually do it-predict job success in managerial jobs and in sales jobs at least as well and arguably better than IQ tests. Moreover they do not correlate with IQ tests, which means that (a) IQ is not the only predictor, and (b) the kinds of predictors we have are relatively independent of IQ. That's not to say that one is important and the other is not. Rather, it says that both are important and that there's more to predicting success than just using IQs. If you want to predict success in jobs, I'm not saying that IQ is worthless, but I am saying that it's not the only thing you can use.

 

[bpesta22]

Malachi

I personally think Sternberg is a weenie (I had a prof in graduate school who published in this area, and he would always refer to him as "that scumbag sternberg".)

Nonethless, I agree with most of what he said in your quote, and I've made similar points in previous posts.

For example, I cited some of the studies that suggest the race difference is not genetic (in particular, Sandra Scarr's study on using blood groups to id % african heritage and then correlating that with IQ).

Still though, saying this study shows it's not genetic does not allow for the conclusion that it's therefore environmental (to me, it's the same fallacy as saying that disproving evolution would then also prove creationism).

I think Sternberg overestimates the contribution environment has on IQ-- he says he doesn't like hereditability estimates, but then he doesn't even mention why / or what he thinks is wrong with them.

He says he has data on his own, practical intelligence. In one of his studies, it may have predicted as well as, or better than, traditional IQ.

I think he's being selective here. His triarchic theory of IQ has been out for I think 20 years now. If he really had the data showing that his measures of his intelligences predict better than g, he would have marketed a test by now (maybe he has). At the very least, his measures would be getting lots more press in the academic literature than they are now.

I remember reading at least two of Sternberg's empirical pieces as a grad student. They were awfully bad-- I don't remember the specifics, but we spent a fair amount of time in class making fun of him.

I read one recently where he bashed the GRE as a predictor of success in grad school. The error in his argument was so blatently obvious that I used the article in undergraduate classes to illustrate how not to do science. Still, this paper was published in an A journal, which coincidentally was at one time edited by Sternberg.

JMO

If you're interested in what a top notch scientist thinks about this, post some quotes from Arthur Jensen.

B

 

[Malachi151]

Still though, saying this study shows it's not genetic does not allow for the conclusion that it's therefore environmental (to me, it's the same fallacy as saying that disproving evolution would then also prove creationism).

Yes, it is because there are only two things at work here, genetics and environment. There is nothing else, except of course scape goats.

I think he's being selective here. His triarchic theory of IQ has been out for I think 20 years now. If he really had the data showing that his measures of his intelligences predict better than g, he would have marketed a test by now (maybe he has). At the very least, his measures would be getting lots more press in the academic literature than they are now.

I doubt it. It has a lot to do with beuacracy. Once something becomes a standard things are very slow to change, especially when they are still considered relatively radical ideas.

I think Sternberg overestimates the contribution environment has on IQ-- he says he doesn't like hereditability estimates, but then he doesn't even mention why / or what he thinks is wrong with them.

I've already explained this. Genes are only part of the equation and only determine in which way someone developes according to an environment. Genes are like a computer program. If you run the same program 10 times and do different things each time you get different results each time. The possible results are constrained by the program, maybe even to very tight measures, but input + process determines output, ie environment + genes determines development.

 

[kerfer]

I never understood oposition to AA.

Um...how about because it's racism, and racism is always wrong?

 

[Malachi151]

Um...how about because it's racism, and racism is always wrong?

This is my last explanation of all this, so whoever doesn't get it, too bad I guess.

Let's use a race as an analogy for society.

Our system works on competition, just like a race.

Let's say that everyone starts on the same line and the race starts and everyone runs the exact same speed. In that case no one will pass anyone and it will be a tie.

Let's say that we have a race where one person gets a 10 foot headstart and everyone runs the same speed, we can expect then that the person with the headstart will be the first across the finishline and lead by 10 feet.

If somene starts behind another person in the race the only way they can catchup to the other is if they are actually faster, i.e. more competative. So if you start at a disadvantage the only way to imporve your position is if you are actually better than the competition and in that case you still may not catchup, depending on how far back you are.

Now, in our society everything is naturally based on comeptition.

The average person does not improve their economic status in their lifetime, the average person maintians whatver status they are born into.

About 50 years ago about 90% of blacks were in poverty or close to poverty, at least poor.

130 years ago most blacks were slaves, no education, their culture destroyed, they were just a large population of people who had nothing.

The only way that it can be expected for a population of people to improve their condition is if that population of people are actually BETTER than the other memebrs of the population. Everyone is competing so unless blacks were actually more successful than whites it would be expected that they will maintian whatever economic position they are started off in as a group. That starting postion for them was the lowest class in America.

It then can only be expecte dthat withouth assistance they would always remain the lowest class in America with about 90% of blacks staying close to poverty. In what way would it be good for America for that to happen?

There are only two things that can affect developement, genetics and environment. Even if you start from the assumption that blacks are genetically equal to whites in every way, with almost all blacks starting out as the lowest class they would forever remain the lowest class. If yo assume that blacks are genetically inferior to whites and you also acknowledge the obvioius fact that they all started out in the worst position in America, then it can only be assumed that they will forever remain the lowest class in America and never achieve much success.

When you add descrimination on top of that and denial of oppertunity even for blacks who did have potential for sucess, as was the case up until AA was enacted, and in fact is still the case even with it in place, then you can see that w/o AA all you can do is resign blacks to forever say the poorest of the poor as a group, while whites who are nto better or worse than blacks and who start off at a higher social and economic level, remian at a higher level forever even if they are no better then the blacks who are "below" them.

The only way to improve your social or economic position in a capitalist system is to be BETTER than the competition, and often if you are poor. Being equal does not improve your standing it just keeps you where you are.

 

[c0rbin]

Um...how about because it's racism, and racism is always wrong?

I move that inclusion of people of merit is not wrong and that it is actually a boon.

AA opens doors to people who were recently not even allowed on the porch and society benefits from it.

 

[JAR]

I move that inclusion of people of merit is not wrong and that it is actually a boon.

AA opens doors to people who were recently not even allowed on the porch and society benefits from it.

Affirmative Action is bad because it punishes people of one race for something that they or some other people of their race might have done.

 

[DavidJames]

I was a "victim" of AA. Many years ago I was denied a better job in a steel mill, a job given to a minority with less seniority. That's one of maybe 25 jobs I failed to get in my 34 years in the work force. That's the only one in which AA was a factor. I suspect that in many of the others I was at least as qualified as the final choice. I was the "victim" of subjective decision making. That first time remains the only job I ever "lost" that I haven't looked back on as a lost opportunity. I moved on and while I'll never know, I'd like to think we are both better off for that decision. I know I am.

 

[JAR]

I was a "victim" of AA. Many years ago I was denied a better job in a steel mill, a job given to a minority with less seniority. That's one of maybe 25 jobs I failed to get in my 34 years in the work force. That's the only one in which AA was a factor. I suspect that in many of the others I was at least as qualified as the final choice. I was the "victim" of subjective decision making. That first time remains the only job I ever "lost" that I haven't looked back on as a lost opportunity. I moved on and while I'll never know, I'd like to think we are both better off for that decision. I know I am.

When I was in middle school and my application for the CIC program(a business-oriented program for smart kids) at Poly High School was accepted, I was told by a Cambodian friend that I wouldn't have been accepted had it not been for affirmative action. He said that I had been chosen over more qualified Asian-American students because there were too many Asian-Americans who had been accepted into the program. I got horrible grades in high school and due to that I didn't get a scholarship and go to a local community college where I continue to get mediocre grades even though I take only two classes at a time.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

I was a "victim" of AA. Many years ago I was denied a better job in a steel mill, a job given to a minority with less seniority. That's one of maybe 25 jobs I failed to get in my 34 years in the work force. That's the only one in which AA was a factor. I suspect that in many of the others I was at least as qualified as the final choice. I was the "victim" of subjective decision making. That first time remains the only job I ever "lost" that I haven't looked back on as a lost opportunity. I moved on and while I'll never know, I'd like to think we are both better off for that decision. I know I am.

Oh brother. So you're glad you were discriminated against? Move to Zimbabwe. You'll be in heaven under Mugabe and his anti-white racist government.

Malachi151, the idea of America is for everyone to be even on the starting line. You are endorsing government and school policies that give favors and advantages to certain races. That is not what America is about, anymore than past disrimination was. It's time to drop race altogether.

As I pointed out, with this new skull find in Ethiopia, it is almost certain that all humans came from black Africa. Thus, we are all "African Americans" in the Unites States. These ill-conceived AA programs could be subject to exposure and humiliation if someone is smart and ballsy enough to test out the DNA argument in court using a white kid.

 

[The Fool]

Genghis
What would you do about a company with approx 500 employees in an area where the population is 30% black that has 0% black employees?

You don't like AA, I don't like AA, but what are the alternatives? Just do nothing? Allow racist employers to continue unchecked? What would you do about my fictitious company? It is this exact sort of situation that has seen AA come about.... What alternatives can you suggest?

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Well there are anti-discrimination laws on the books, which are used all the time.

For example, some asian and hispanic people are suing Abercrombie & Fitch right now on grounds similar to your fictitious company.

Abercrombie Faces Discrimination Lawsuit

Since you asked me personaly, I am a libertarian, and I think companies should be able hire anyone they want. If they are racists, this fact will be brought out by the media, MTV, activists, etc, and the company's sales will be hit in a major way, not only by the minorities being injured, but by the overwhelming majority of white people as well.

If Ambercrombie wants to promote an idealistic "white frat boy" image for whatever reason, that is their god-damn business, literally. I don't like the government telling me who I have to hire, anymore than I like them telling me who I have to marry, or who I have to be friends with.

 

[JAR]

Genghis
What would you do about a company with approx 500 employees in an area where the population is 30% black that has 0% black employees?

You don't like AA, I don't like AA, but what are the alternatives? Just do nothing? Allow racist employers to continue unchecked? What would you do about my fictitious company? It is this exact sort of situation that has seen AA come about.... What alternatives can you suggest?

Dude, if I was in a place where the employers wouldn't hire white people, I'd move somewhere else.